Grammatical relations in Movima
Alignment beyond semantic roles
Movima (isolate, Bolivia) has two transitive constructions: direct/ergative and inverse/accusative. The most straightforward argument selector is relativization. Relativization selects the P of the direct and the A of the inverse construction, which, in each case, is the argument whose referent ranks lower on scales of person, animacy, and topicality. In terms of constituency, this is the “external” argument, and it aligns with S. Certain oblique-marked arguments can be relativized as well, so relativization is a test to distinguish oblique arguments from adjuncts. Other constructions that privilege the external argument are demonstrative fronting and argument incorporation – although the latter is restricted to the direct construction and therefore also to the P argument. Two constructions select an argument on the basis of its semantic role: possessor ascension privileges P, and imperatives, which participate in the direct/inverse alternation, privilege A. Other cross-linguistically typical argument selectors do not seem to show a preference for a particular argument or semantic role: reflexives, coordination, embedding, and quantifier floating.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The basic clause and its components
- 2.1The direct-inverse system
- 2.2Formal properties of argument encoding
- 2.3Obliques: Adjuncts or oblique arguments?
- 2.4Argument encoding in embedded clauses
- 3.Argument selectors privileging the external argument
- 3.1Headed relative clauses, detransitivization, and negation
- 3.2Verbal RPs
- 3.3Pronoun fronting
- 3.4Wh-questions
- 3.5Oblique arguments? Evidence from relativization
- 3.5.1Relativization of non-core arguments
- 3.5.2Relativization of applied arguments
- 3.6Fronted demonstratives
- 3.7Argument incorporation
- 4.Argument selection based on semantic role
- 4.1Possessor ascension
- 4.2Imperatives
- 5.“Neutral” constructions
- 5.1Reflexives
- 5.2Coordination
- 5.3Embedding
- 5.4Floating quantifiers
- 6.Conclusion
- Symbols and abbreviations in glosses
-
Notes
-
References
References (30)
References
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17(4): 673–711. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammatical Relations, Jae Jung Song (ed.), 399–444. Oxford: OUP.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Citko, Barbara. 2004. On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22: 95–126. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
DeLancey, Scott. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language 57(3): 626–657. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 1997. A typology of argument-determined constructions. In Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to T. Givón, 71–113, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Foley, William. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Paper presented at the 3rd LFG conference, Brisbane, 30 June–3 July.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3(1): 1–21. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2009a. Hierarchical alignment in Movima. International Journal of American Linguistics 75(4): 513–532. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2009b. Reference and predication in Movima. In New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, Patience Epps & Alexandre Arkhipov (eds), 323–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2010a. ‘She kisses her late husband’ = ‘she kissed her husband’: nominal tense marking in Movima. In Rara & Rarissima: Documenting the Fringes of Linguistic Diversity, Michael Cysouw & Jan Wohlgemuth (eds), 95–116. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2011b. Argument encoding in Movima: The local domain. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(4): 559–571. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2012. The expression of three-participant events in Movima. Linguistic Discovery 10(3): 80–96. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2014. Animacy and inverse voice in Movima: A corpus study. Anthropological Linguistics 56(3–4): 294–314. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina. 2018a. Nonverbal predication in Movima. In Nonverbal predication in Amazonian Languages [Typological Studies in Language 122], Simon Overall, Rosa Vallejos & Spike Gildea (eds), 217–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Haude, Katharina & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Inverse and symmetrical voice: On languages with two transitive constructions. Linguistics 54(3): 443–481. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2005. Tagalog. In The Austronesian Languages of Asia and Madagascar, Alexander Adelaar & Nikolaus Himmelmann (eds), 350–376. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, Peter Austin & Simon Musgrave (eds), 247–293. Stanford CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kaufman, Daniel. 2009. Austronesian nominalism and its consequences: A Tagalog case study. Theoretical Linguistics 35(1): 1–49. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Keenan, Edward. 1976. Towards a universal definition of ‘subject’. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 305–334. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kroeger, Paul R. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford CA: CSLI.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schachter, Paul. 1976. “The subject in Philippine languages: Topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed.), 491–518. New York NY: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1988. Voice in Philippine languages. In Passive and Voice [Typological Studies in Language 16], Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), 85–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, Rober M.W. Dixon (ed.), 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas [Typological Studies in Language 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Haude, Katharina
2021.
Clefting and nominal predication: Two focus-marking constructions in Movima.
Faits de Langues 52:1
► pp. 117 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.